Kennedy and Obama: Two Paper Tigers

Amid the hotly contested democratic primaries of 2008, Caroline
Kennedy — no doubt advised by her Uncle Ted, whose hatred of the
Clintons was widely known — published an article in The New York Times
under the title, “A president like my father,” comparing Barack Obama
to John F. Kennedy. Hillary must have felt that cheap shot [made by
Kennedy] right in the solar plexus.
The only survivor of the late president’s immediate family wrote:
“I’ve never had a president who has inspired me the way people tell me
that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I think I found
the man who could be that president — not just for me but also for a
new generation of Americans.”
Despite my antipathy — justified by that traitor who caused the
failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion, along with the condemnation of
the people of Cuba to a life of slavery for over half a century — I
found Caroline’s exaggerated comparison of Obama to a former president
of the United States who was elevated to idol status by the tragic
circumstances of his death hard to accept. It bothered me particularly
that she used the bowing of a people to a president assassinated in
his youth to promote the political career of a subject associated with
terrorists like Bill Ayers, anti-semites like Louis Farrakhan, racists
like Jeremiah Wright and convicted thieves like Tony Rezko.
However, although I still think that the comparison was unfortunate,
the last five years have shown that, if we exclude the relationships
Obama has had with the above-mentioned individuals, John Kennedy and
Barack Obama share many similarities in their ideology, their
political careers and in the exercise of their duties as president.
Kennedy and Obama shared an ideology of egalitarian society where the
government would be the arbiter of the citizens’ welfare through
redistribution of wealth.
Obama and Kennedy were the products of thought and doctrines taught by
leftist social engineers at universities such as Columbia and Harvard.
Neither Kennedy nor Obama ever earned their bread by the sweat of
their brow. Obama and Kennedy became president after lightning races
in the
Senate of the United States. A press in search of a populist Messiah
spoiled both Kennedy and Obama. And Obama and Kennedy were attributed
such qualities of persuasion themselves that would enable them to
engage and neutralize even the enemies of the United States.
But experience has shown that both of their balloons were inflated and
burst on contact with the reality of an international atmosphere
contaminated by hatred and envy against the powerful United States.
Not even the news that comes from the president’s own journalistic
circle can change the reality that the failure of both men in the
international arena has been kept hidden. In 1962, Nikita Khrushchev
won the game for John Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. A few
days ago, Vladimir Putin spent the steamroller to Barack Obama in
confrontation with Syria unleashed by the use of chemical weapons by
the satrap of Damascus. Both Kennedy and Obama proved to be two paper
tigers unable to inspire the respect that any nation deserves, whether
large or small. During the resolution of the missile crisis, Kennedy
betrayed the Monroe Doctrine, not only allowing extra power to
continentally establish a base in the Americas, but committing U.S.
military power to protect their base in Cuba Soviet enemy territory,
just 90 miles off the coast of the United States.
As if this were not enough, that rookie American president gave the
Soviet bully a sleeping pill with the dismantling of U.S. nuclear
missiles pointing towards the USSR from U.S. bases in Turkey. This
part of the deal was not disclosed ignominiously at the time, but many
years later, it was revealed to the U.S. public.
Taking a leap forward five decades, we find a President Obama
negotiating the terms for removal of chemical weapons in Syria. In one
of those twists that was unprecedented in international politics, the
main actor in the negotiations was the pimp named Vladimir Putin, the
same man that has provided weapons to Assad, who has killed more than
120,000 men, women and children in the course of the past two years.
But, to make it worth their threats, the victim of his verbosity and
cowardice, Obama, had no choice but to cling to the lifeline that
launched him Vladimir Putin — a sworn enemy of the United States and
admirer of Joseph Stalin, whose main goal is to restore the global
hegemony of the former Soviet Union.
Putin, backed by an emboldened Assad, has demanded as a condition to
any agreement on chemical weapons, that Washington is committed to not
unleash any attacks against the genocidal regime of Syria under any
circumstances. If Obama agrees to these terms — and it appears he has
no choice but to acquiesce if he wants to avoid the ridiculous
breaking of his promise to prevent the use of chemical weapons — Assad
would be free to continue massacring the Syrian people without any
fear of being assaulted.
Two major obstacles accent the weak bargaining position of Obama: the
perception that sympathizes with radical Muslims, and Americans
opposed to another war. From his calm speech in Cairo early in his
term, the President is perceived as a supporter of extremist groups in
the Islamic world — such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt — and some
of those who now oppose Bashar al-Assad.
To complicate matters, according to a recent report from CNN, “The
Western forces are actually training the rebels of Al-Nusra in Jordan
and Turkey.” According to many analysts, if these people were to take
power in Syria, it could pose a greater danger than Assad himself to
the safety of the United States.
At the same time the contradictory statements of Obama and his minions
like John Kerry, with regard to the crisis, have made it appear that
Americans do not trust their determination to make a serious war
leading to a military success. A recent survey by Fox News chain
indicates the result that 54 percent of Americans do not approve of
the job performance of President Obama.
An Associated Press poll indicates that members of the House of
Representatives oppose the war against Syria at a ratio of 6-1. It
also indicates that any resolution in the Senate would also be
defeated. And a recent poll by McClatchy / Marist shows opposition to
the war at 3-1 among registered voters.
Moreover, devils do not make miracles without demanding the submission
of those who receive them. Putin must know, and decided to rub salt in
the wound with an article in The New York Times in which he had the
audacity to give lessons in democracy to the United States. The
atheist who has tortured thousands of his countrymen came to cynicism
to invoke the name of God, saying, “We are all different, but when we
ask the Lord’s blessing we must not forget that God created us all
equal”: a humiliation experienced by this country for showing the lack
of common sense to put in the White House a handicapped community
agitator. As a result of these negotiations, Obama will benefit by
avoiding the humiliation of being rejected by his own Congress and
Assad will maintain control over the Syrian people. But the biggest
beneficiary will be Vladimir Putin. The henchman Lazar of a few weeks
ago is now the great peacemaker.
But just as in George Orwell’s novel, the most egregious version, we
saw how the American press handled Kennedy during the Cuban Missile
Crisis, and we now see how they present Obama as initiating a great
victory for peace. Even if sharing this time and “glory” with Putin,
it could possibly lead to another undeserved Nobel Prize.
Alfredo Cepero writes for The New Nation is an independent publication
whose goals are the defense of freedom, the preservation of democracy
and the promotion of free enterprise.